By Parth Gupta
On August 15th, 2016 during the traditional Independence Day celebrations, the annual speech consisted of the traditional jargon, except one word that was long considered taboo: Balochistan.
Prime Minister Modi, from the rampart of the Red Fort, said, The people of Balochistan, Gilgit and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir have thanked me, from places that I have never been and by people I have never had a chance to meet. They have sent wishes to the people of India and have thanked us, I am grateful to them.
PM Modi’s statement didnt go down well with many, meeting angry reactions from various opposition parties who argued that interference in the national matters of other countries isnt India’s position.
This apparent provocation has come at a tricky time, considering the Kashmir unrest, not to mention the obvious resistance from Islamabad which retorted by claiming that Mr. Modis remark is evidence of RAWs effort to foment terrorism in Pakistan.
A troubled history
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gestures as he delivers his Independence Day speech from the Red Fort | Photo Courtesy: International Business TimesIn 1947, the then ruler of the princely state of Balochistan refused to join Pakistan, but subsequently, the state was annexed to Pakistan following a major military operation in 1948, which was succeeded by a string of rebellions in 1958, 1962-63, and 1973-77. Balochistan holds strategic importance since it is a mineralrich state and is a potential revenuegenerating region. Furthermore, the Iran-Pakistan gas pipelines are scheduled to go pass through Balochistan, worsening Indias control over the Arabian Sea. Adding to its importance is the opening of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which connects Gwadar to the rest of Pakistan proper.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]It wouldn’t be incorrect to mention that in the past, NDAs policy to tackle Pakistan has been chancy.[/su_pullquote]
The Prime Minister’s remarks appear to be retaliation for Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir. Perhaps, he is hopeful of a quid pro quo on the issue. It wouldn’t be incorrect to mention that in the past, NDAs policy to tackle Pakistan has been chancy. Despite declaring that the Pakistani High Commissioner could not invite Hurriyat for a dialogue and that there could be no talks at any level under the shadow of such demands, both the Prime Ministers had met on the sidelines of the SAARC summit.
Furthermore, on the sidelines of a multilateral meeting in Ufa, both the Prime Ministers issued a joint statement that they would negotiate on the subject of terrorism. This was an ideological switch from BJPs previous position. Unfortunately, against the backdrop of the terrorist attacks, it’s safe to say that the negotiations have not helped.
An act of idiocy or a stroke of political genius?
Every political analyst hopes that Mr. Modi has done his homework on this issue. For the government surely cant take a step back now. Balochistan is already under the spotlight, especially since the former Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai backed Mr. Modi on the ‘Baloch’ question.
[su_pullquote]What can strategically benefit India, is the secession of Balochistan; Pakistan will be reduced to half of its present size.[/su_pullquote]
Maybe, it is an attempt to highlight the atrocities the Pakistani Government has been committing against Baloch citizens and portray it as a grisly example of a Pakistani Kashmir if they ever occupy the whole of Kashmir. Turbulence in Balochistan has been reported in journals, documentaries and reports by international news agencies. What can strategically benefit India, is the secession of Balochistan; Pakistan will be reduced to half of its present size. It is also highly probable that its merely an attempt to counter the CPEC and free the Gwadar port from Chinese presence.
It could also serve as a means to politically outshine other political parties in India with rhetoric. The principal opposition party is in a dilemma with respect to issuing a comprehensive statement regarding the remarks: Nor can they come out to openly to support the NDA, neither can they try to knock down the government as they did during the 1999 Kargil war, criticising the then Atal Bihari Vajpayee government for its failure to detect insurgency. For its part, the UPA had to face a backlash for preaching anti-national statements and not being supportive of the government in the midst a war.
For now one can only hazard a guess. Will Mr. Modi’s apparent masterstroke yield results?